From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urbieta v. Urbieta

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1985
469 So. 2d 930 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

holding that the trial court's order establishing an eight-year payment schedule was "manifestly erroneous" where the former husband had the ability to pay

Summary of this case from J.A.L. v. R.M.A.

Opinion

No. 84-1832.

May 28, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, George Orr, J.

Stabinski Funt and Cristina de Oliveira, Miami, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


This cause recurs here following our opinion in Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which dealt with the award of attorneys' fees to Mayra Urbieta's former attorneys. Pursuant to our mandate, the trial court set reasonable attorneys' fees at $5,800.00. Thereafter, the trial court determined that the fees were to be paid as follows: $1,000.00 to be paid immediately; the remaining $4,800.00 to be paid in monthly installments of $50.00.

As the law firm points out, it would take eight years for the husband to discharge the remaining $4,800.00 obligation if such payments are made through monthly installments of $50.00. The order was manifestly erroneous in face of the husband's financial affidavits reflecting assets of $391,000.00.

The trial court abused its discretion. We accordingly reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment for the former attorneys for the amount of attorneys' fees not yet paid.

Reversed and remanded with directions.


Summaries of

Urbieta v. Urbieta

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1985
469 So. 2d 930 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

holding that the trial court's order establishing an eight-year payment schedule was "manifestly erroneous" where the former husband had the ability to pay

Summary of this case from J.A.L. v. R.M.A.

holding that trial court abused its discretion in its award of attorney's fees to the wife because "it would take eight years for the husband to discharge the remaining" obligation and the husband had a clear ability to pay

Summary of this case from Wright v. Wright

finding that the fifty-dollar monthly repayment "was manifestly erroneous in face of the husband's financial affidavits reflecting assets of $391,000" as it would take the husband eight years to repay the remaining $4800 award

Summary of this case from R.M.A. v. J.A.S.
Case details for

Urbieta v. Urbieta

Case Details

Full title:MAYRA URBIETA, APPELLANT, v. GUILLERMO URBIETA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 28, 1985

Citations

469 So. 2d 930 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Wright v. Wright

" Balko v. Balko, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D795, D795 (Fla. 2d DCA March 23, 2007) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris,…

Wright v. Wright

We conclude that the structure of the award of attorney's fees and costs to the former wife was manifestly…